pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
help me pick apart this argument
#1
this guy is a new clerk for a pittsburgh judge with political aspirations. he obviously has a legal background. helping change his opinion may have an effect on us some day.

Quote:his original comment:

A position which has over 90% support, including the support of this Second Amendment advocate, and one they've rolled back on the principle that, alternatively, "the background checks we have don't work" and "we should implement the laws we have."Or, maybe -- just maybe -- the sudden shift in NRA policy statements is due to the boatload of money that gun manufacturers get from folks who buy guns illegally in secondary markets. See also Mylan Pharmaceuticals, the supplier of virtually all West Virginia's addiction to painkillers and oft-opponent of FDA review and regulation of the impact of prescription drug addiction.


Quote:my reply:

secondary markets benefit the initial purchaser, not the manufacturers. while I don't doubt that the ability to resell a rifle has helped a few people here and there cut down on buyer's remorse or factored into an initial purchase decision, those people only account for a small fraction of gun sales.

a second amendment advocate does not support more background checks. if ypu support universal background checks, you're not a second amendment advocate. second amendment advocates disagree with the part of heller that says the government has the right to more regulation because of the words 'shall not be infringed'.

the 90% figure that's being thrown about was, as far as I can tell, from a nytimes survey where they called just over 1000 landlines and cellphones. of the gun owners they found, 9 of 10 supported background checks. if you think 1000 people is an acceptable sample size for a country of 320 million, you're simply crazy.

Quote:his reply:

(1) Ruminations on the nature of man notwithstanding, Charles, I'm not suggesting laws make people better. I'm suggesting that, at present, convicted criminals, yet unconvicted criminals, and the severely mentally ill have access to an untraced cache of murder weapons on the black market and use that access to kill people, and that multimillion dollar corporations are making significant amounts of money from it. I'm also suggesting that simple regulations like universal registration, periodic background checks and mental health screenings, limits on the number of weapons purchasable in a particular period, and criminal and civil sanctions for those who don't comply would do a lot to stop that. I'm further suggesting that those regulations would permit law abiding citizens and the mentally healthy to continue to serve the purposes of the Second Amendment in protecting the nation in the event of despotism, as well as permit them to defend themselves in case of attack. Finally, I'm suggesting the only reason those regulations aren't in place is because of the power of gun manufacturers in Congress, not only by their virtually unlimited campaign contributions, but also because they stove the paranoid into thinking the most pro-gun Democratic president in history is out to take their guns. So they can continue profiting from death.

(2) Ranjan, first, you know better than to claim the secondary market doesn't benefit those in the primary market. You're talking about someone who resells a rifle that he purchased for himself to a friend. I'm talking about individuals who anonymously supply the black market with weapons -- particularly handguns. Claiming those sales don't benefit the manufacturer is like claiming car dealers don't benefit Honda. 

(3) Second, I do appreciate insightful comment, but please don't tell me whether I am or am not a Second Amendment Advocate. I took two oaths to support and defend the Constitution. I take them very seriously, and with no exception for those that make governing difficult. However -- and I don't know the extent to which you've studied the history of Constitutional jurisprudence -- virtually every constitutional provision is interpreted in light of its text, original meaning, purpose, and structure within the constitutional framework of republican government. The reason behind this is because they're all in tension. Taking your absolute textualist approach to the document, you wouldn't even have a right to bear arms relative to state government, as the rights in the Bill of Rights are only relative to the federal government and (some) were subsequently interpreted to be so fundamental as to be cognized in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. With respect to the Second Amendment, that's the significance of the City of Chicago case. Moreover, under Article I Section 8, the Congress has the authority to provide for calling the militia, as well as all powers necessary and proper to that power. That alone is enough to include background checks, mental health screenings, and universal registration. You're making a policy decision to hold the text of the Second Amendment over all others. That doesn't make you an advocate of the Amendment. That makes you an advocate of lazy legal analysis. And so it is with all rights. Every constitutional protection is subject to some level of countervailing regulation. Consider the consequences of such an interpretation of the free exercise clause, for example. If my faith requires human sacrifice, a prohibition on murder doesn't apply to me any more. If my faith requires treason, that's fine too. Likewise with the assembly clause. Get ready for a Klan/Westboro Baptist/Neo Nazi demonstration in your living room. Likewise with even the sacrosanct right to a jury -- imagine the system where every parking ticket requires adjudication by 12 people. It's nonsense, and you don't have to believe in nonsense to be an advocate of the Second Amendment or its values.

(4) I would also note that a sample size of 1000 in a 320,000,000 population gives you a 99% confidence level with a 4% margin of error, or a 95% confidence level with a 3% margin of error. http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm
Stirpot
Reply
#2
in response to the stats, I can pick out 1 major flaw quickly, where 1000 is an adequate sample size fpr the us population, when ypu factor in how many of those sampled are gun owners, you have to retest for interval, I believe, because only a portion of those sampled would be gun owners, and could give their position to represent all gun owners. it's been a while since I took stats.
Stirpot
Reply
#3
The sample is sufficient. If the results and question have no tampering, then most gun owners do in fact believe more background checks wouod be acceptable. Rather or not they are effective, I suspect the data we have would prove to the contrary. .. you have to start thefe. You need stats/observations that pertain to the effectiveness of the current system and proof it doesnt work.

I see here and believ that the majority would wave the flag for universal background checks and be happy. Much like they would be happy to vote for a milder anti gun nut over obama because after all background checks are better than a ban, but are they? No they are not... both are a loss and we want to win not lose. Unfortunately I doubt people understand this.
Reply
#4
Assuming 90 million gun owners and a sample of 1000 of them with a percentage of 90% means we can be reasonably certain 95% certain that out of all gun owners 84% to 96% believe in gun background checks or rather whatever the specific question that was asked of them that returned a 90% value..
Reply
#5
ExcelToExcel;75185 Wrote:Assuming 90 million gun owners and a sample of 1000 of them with a percentage of 90% means we can be reasonably certain 95% certain that out of all gun owners 84% to 96% believe in gun background checks or rather whatever the specific question that was asked of them that returned a 90% value..

Let me correct this but im on my phone... we can be 99% certain that 87% to 93% of all gun owners would answer the question the same way..
Reply
#6
I really want to see this poll. I can't believe that's accurate. outside of that, a sample.of 1000 is adequate to see how many gun owners there are with that margin of error. suppose they found that 100 people responded that they owned a gun. (how many gun owners would volunteer that they own guns to a stranger over the phone) if any number of those 100 answered they'd support more stringent background checks,thee sample is now 100 not 1000 which is not indocative of the 110 million gun owners with only a 3% margin of error.

that said, the bulk of his last argument is what scares me. he considers himself a 2a advocate and at one point, his reply included periodic on-going background checks, but he apparently edited the post between when I first read it and when I copied it here.
Stirpot
Reply
#7
panopticonisi;75197 Wrote:I really want to see this poll. I can't believe that's accurate. outside of that, a sample.of 1000 is adequate to see how many gun owners there are with that margin of error. suppose they found that 100 people responded that they owned a gun. (how many gun owners would volunteer that they own guns to a stranger over the phone) if any number of those 100 answered they'd support more stringent background checks,thee sample is now 100 not 1000 which is not indocative of the 110 million gun owners with only a 3% margin of error.

that said, the bulk of his last argument is what scares me. he considers himself a 2a advocate and at one point, his reply included periodic on-going background checks, but he apparently edited the post between when I first read it and when I copied it here.

That was the problem with my first calculation I used 100 instead of 1000. 84 to 96% then... at 95% so um.. still not good..

Let me shock you. If it was only 90% of a sample of 30 gun owners (27) we can be 95% certain that at least 79% of gun owners would answer the question that way... sorry..
Reply
#8
ExcelToExcel;75184 Wrote:The sample is sufficient. If the results and question have no tampering, then most gun owners do in fact believe more background checks wouod be acceptable. Rather or not they are effective, I suspect the data we have would prove to the contrary. .. you have to start thefe. You need stats/observations that pertain to the effectiveness of the current system and proof it doesnt work.

I see here and believ that the majority would wave the flag for universal background checks and be happy. Much like they would be happy to vote for a milder anti gun nut over obama because after all background checks are better than a ban, but are they? No they are not... both are a loss and we want to win not lose. Unfortunately I doubt people understand this.

An accurate sample is all that is needed. Part of research statistics is determining if the sample studied is a part of the population or not. I would argue that the sample that was polled is not an accurate sample of America's whole population.

As for his argument about the 2A's textual approach: it wasn't. The founding fathers just fought a war for independence. In fact, the battles of Concord was fought because the British wanted to confiscate firearms. Additionally, the 2A specifically spells out an individual right to keep and bear arms. It does not say "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the federal government to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." No, it says that "the right of the people to keep an bear arms" can't be infringed.

Additionally, unlike laws that give us the ability to do something by claiming it is legal, the 2A specifically prohibits the regulation of arms in the United States by expressly prohibiting the regulation thereof. The history of the CotUS and the intentions of the founding fathers do tend to support this interpretation.
Reply
#9
rmagill;75270 Wrote:
ExcelToExcel;75184 Wrote:The sample is sufficient. If the results and question have no tampering, then most gun owners do in fact believe more background checks wouod be acceptable. Rather or not they are effective, I suspect the data we have would prove to the contrary. .. you have to start thefe. You need stats/observations that pertain to the effectiveness of the current system and proof it doesnt work.

I see here and believ that the majority would wave the flag for universal background checks and be happy. Much like they would be happy to vote for a milder anti gun nut over obama because after all background checks are better than a ban, but are they? No they are not... both are a loss and we want to win not lose. Unfortunately I doubt people understand this.

An accurate sample is all that is needed. Part of research statistics is determining if the sample studied is a part of the population or not. I would argue that the sample that was polled is not an accurate sample of America's whole population.

As for his argument about the 2A's textual approach: it wasn't. The founding fathers just fought a war for independence. In fact, the battles of Concord was fought because the British wanted to confiscate firearms. Additionally, the 2A specifically spells out an individual right to keep and bear arms. It does not say "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the federal government to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." No, it says that "the right of the people to keep an bear arms" can't be infringed.

Additionally, unlike laws that give us the ability to do something by claiming it is legal, the 2A specifically prohibits the regulation of arms in the United States by expressly prohibiting the regulation thereof. The history of the CotUS and the intentions of the founding fathers do tend to support this interpretation.

here's what I have so far:

I am not an arms manufacturer, nor do I represent one. the nra's position of "no further transgressions on gun rights" describes me perfectly. in shifting it's political standing, the nra has come into line with my beliefs, not those of arms manufacturers. outside of the current panic buying, the evil manufacturers of firearms made much more money equipping world governments than they did selling arm to american citizens. it'sno secret that the american public is well armed with 2 weapons for every 3 citizens, but the armories of the world's militaries, police forces, and resistance fighters are far more vast. most countries don't publish their arm holdings, but extrapolation from the 1000 arms manufacturers producing almost 10 million a year for the past 200 years leaves americas citizens as a small percentage of their earnings.

your analogy with honda is inapplicable here for two reasons. dealers don't own the car they sell. the dealer purchases a lease from the manufacturer that allows them to transfer the car from the manufacturer to the buyer. in a matter of fact, auto makers aren't allowed to own showroom dealerships. the initial purchases protected under first sale doctrine isn't the dealer, but the first private individual who purchases the car from the manufacturer through the dealer. second, there isn't a constitutional amendment protecting sales of automobiles.


I'm trying to research what he means about the due process clause and the fact that rkba wouldn't exist because of it. so far, all I can tell is that the 2nd prohibits the federal government from regulating firearms, but allows the states individually regulate them. we pretty much knew that, but why this means that we wouldn't have rkba is beyond me at this point.
Stirpot
Reply
#10
If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: facts dont matter to those who want to ban guns. The result of the non scientific poll could have shown the absolute reverse outcome and they would still claim support.

His assertion that gun manufacturers profit from the secondary sales of firearms, no matter how big the words he uses are, is so absurdly false that it should show you exactly how much credence he pays to fact.

I would argue that the government does not only not enforce laws on the books, but that it also violates those laws with apparent impunity, and that it also abuses the law to harass and/or punish the law abiding ( such as the ATF's Fast & Furious, as well as their blatant abuses of evidence and claims of people making machine guns because the ATF took their semi auto and turned it into a full auto ).

I would argue that before more draconian yet ineffective legislation is heaped upon the Constitution, the federal government should look inside itself. They have no moral ground to stand on. They are a drinking, smoking, gambling, whoring abusive step dad yelling at the kids not to drink, smoke, gamble, or chase loose women.
tolerance for failure meter... LOW
Reply






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  if you had to pick a state to live in based on gun laws, which would you pick? panopticonisi 18 1,604 06-25-2014, 07:13 AM
Last Post: Camper
  Help me pick a new CC gun ArcticSplash 19 2,201 03-09-2014, 12:08 AM
Last Post: spblademaker
  being overly paranoid? should I pick up my purchases this morning? glocke12 19 2,386 01-17-2013, 07:26 PM
Last Post: P89



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.